A Syriac Chrestomathy

sources for syriacists

R3 · nestle-1889-en/r3/c106-1

work vitae-prophetarum:epiphanius-colophon+sequel

work_note

⭐ THE STRUCTURAL FINDING OF THIS SHARD SITS ON THIS PAGE. Lines 6-7 (= piece lines 403-404) carry a COLOPHON that closes the Epiphanius Vitae, and a further, distinct piece then runs from line 8 (= piece line 405) to the end of Chrest. III on p. 107: line 6: ܫܠܡ ܕ⟨?⟩ … line 7: ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ ܀ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ ("bishop of Cyprus") is an INCLUSIO with the piece's own opening on p. 86 line 3 (ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܦܝܦܢܝܘܣ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ ܂), and ܫܠܡ is the ordinary Syriac "here ends". Both words were verified glyph by glyph at ~9-11x: ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ as dalath · qoph · waw · pe · rish (dot above) · waw · semkath (the closed double lobe, unmistakable), and the end mark as FOUR dots in a diamond, i.e. ܀ not ܂. Schermann's Latin colophon — "Haec autem conscripserunt Epiphanius de Cypro et Cornel(i)us de Ierusalem" — independently says that the Syriac tradition pairs an Epiphanius text with a second one, which is exactly the seam seen here. ⚠ WHAT THE SEQUEL IS, AND WHOSE, WAS NOT READ. Lines 8-20 are continuous text with no rubric anywhere on the page; the only rubric in the remainder of the piece stands on p. 107 line 9. The natural hypothesis from the Latin is Cornelius of Jerusalem, but that is NOT a reading and is not recorded as one. Whoever verifies this should read p. 106 lines 8-10 first — that is where a second attribution would stand. Nestle names no individual codex; "e tribus codicibus Musei Britannici" (p. 86) is all he gives. No witness field exists in the schema — known gap.

layer unvocalized Estrangela, with seyame and the diacritic points
layer_source read from the plate

layer_note

Verified on this page: no vowel signs on any of the 20 lines; seyame present (several plurals in lines 5-9 carry it); dalath/rish points present. ⭐ Note that the layer does NOT change at the colophon — the sequel that begins at line 8 is set in the same unvocalized Estrangela as the Epiphanius text before it, so the script gives no cue to the seam. Only the ܫܠܡ … ܀ does.

diff_target

Th. Schermann, PROPHETARUM VITAE FABULOSAE, Teubner 1907 — archive.org prophetarumvita00schegoog. Latin version of the Syriac (cod. Sinait. syro 10) at pp. 105-106, leaf = page + 74 (calibrated on two running heads); Index nominum propriorum at printed p. 240. ⛔ The Latin Appendix is a two-page CAPITULUM (a summary list of 22 prophets with tribe, date and burial place), not the full Lives — SENSE-level control only, and a thin one. It catches a mis-keyed name or a meaningless sentence; it never adjudicates pointing and cannot be aligned page-for-page. See research/syriac-peshitta-editions.md

seyame yes
lines_per_page 20

line_numbers

400, 405, 410, 415 — read off the plate in the LEFT (outer) margin of this verso, standing against printed lines 3, 8, 13 and 18. The page therefore carries piece lines 398-417. Numbering CONTINUOUS: it runs straight through the colophon at lines 403-404 without a break or a restart, so Nestle numbers the two pieces as one 435-line unit.

page_number_form Syriac numeral letter, centred at head, above the first text band

page_number_read

ܩܘ = 100 + 6 = 106 — qoph (loop + bar) + waw (small closed loop), the two loops side by side. Agrees with leaf = page + 89.

transcription_note

Same conventions as c103-1: seyame → U+0308, linea occultans → U+0304, low point → ܂, two-dot pause → ܆, end mark → ܀ (the plate prints it here as four dots in a diamond). Qushshaya/rukkakha and participle points are on the plate and are NOT transcribed — a known gap, not a claim of absence. No square brackets occur on this page. Doubtful words → ⟨?…⟩; an unread line is emitted in position as ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩. Nothing was filled in from the Latin control — in particular ܫܠܡ ܕ⟨?⟩ is left short rather than completed to the expected ܫܠܡ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܦܝܦܢܝܘܣ, which is what the sense wants and what the plate was not read to say.

text_syr_voc

⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ܫܠܡ ܕ⟨?⟩ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ ܀ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩ ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩

primer_notes

NONE on this page. No rule and no smaller type at the foot; the twentieth text line runs to the bottom of the type area. ⭐ Nestle prints the colophon as running text with no editorial note, no bracket and no change of type — nothing but the Syriac ܫܠܡ … ܀ marks the seam between the two pieces, and his own Latin heading on p. 86 ("III. VITAE PROPHETARUM") gives no hint that the section contains two works.

extraction

status

keyed from the plate, PARTIAL and UNVERIFIED: 2 of 20 printed lines carry a reading (the colophon); 18 are emitted as ⟨?LINE NOT READ⟩; 1 word flagged ⟨?…⟩

reason

Same measured ceiling as c103-1 — see that record's [extraction] for the numbers, the two calibration aids (Nestle's alphabet table at leaf n21; the labelled specimen at p. 86 lines 1-3) and the confirmation that the archive.org item carries NO OCR (_djvu.txt is 0 bytes). The colophon came out because ܫܠܡ and ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ are formulae a reader can hypothesise and then verify; the surrounding narrative is not.

alignment

status colophon keyed from Nestle; checked against Schermann 1907, which corroborates the SHAPE of the finding

diff

WHAT THE CONTROL CONFIRMED, and it is the most useful thing it does anywhere in this shard: Schermann's Latin ends "Haec autem conscripserunt Epiphanius de Cypro et Cornel(i)us de Ierusalem. Explicit." — i.e. the Sinai Syriac witness ALSO presents this material as an Epiphanius text with a second hand named beside it, and it also names Cyprus. That is independent corroboration that a colophon naming "the bishop of Cyprus" belongs at the close of the Epiphanius portion, which is exactly where the plate puts it (line 404 of 435). It does NOT confirm any letter of the Syriac. WHAT IT CANNOT DO: the capitulum is 22 summary entries; it has no parallel to the running text of lines 1-5 or 8-20, it cannot say who wrote the sequel, and it never adjudicates pointing.

UNCERTAIN READINGS ON THIS PAGE: · line 6, everything after ܫܠܡ ܕ — not resolved. The expected ܟܬܒܐ ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܦܝܦܢܝܘܣ was deliberately NOT supplied from sense. · lines 1-5 and 8-20 — not read at all. Lines 8-10 are the ones that matter most (see work_note): they should carry the sequel's attribution. · ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ ܀ is recorded as a confident reading; every glyph of ܕܩܘܦܪܘܣ was matched at ~11x and the end mark counted as four dots.

source

primer nestle-1889-en
page 106
leaf n195